View Full Version : Rolling Stones Magazine - "Album Cover Way Better Than The Music"
TimboTambo
05 Oct 2006, 00:31
http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2006/09/19/meat-loafs-bat-out-of-hell-iii-album-cover-way-better-than-the-music/
Prompts interesting debate on the meaning of the album covers. Thoughts? Personally, I think they are designed purely to follow a theme and look pretty damn cool
AndrewG
05 Oct 2006, 00:46
As many pointed out, that is not a review. That is just a remark. I mean you could say that kinda stuff about any music really: "cheesy" etc. It doesn't mean anything IMO.
Paul191
05 Oct 2006, 00:52
'Rolling Stone' is a crap magazine aswell as all those other magazines that read in exactly the same way such as 'Mojo'.
like one person comments rs mag is tiolet paper with pics
PanicLord
05 Oct 2006, 20:58
Good to see all those comments standing up for Meat and rubbishing the magazine lol.
(heck, the new one was cobbled together out of old Jim Steinman odds n’ sods, including a leftover from an aborted Batman musical).
At least they got something right.
Paul191
06 Oct 2006, 01:11
At least they got something right.
Yep.......... And those odds and sods and failures created one hell of an album eh!
wenners
06 Oct 2006, 01:30
'Rolling Stone' is a crap magazine aswell as all those other magazines that read in exactly the same way such as 'Mojo'.
Well i think they have been doing something right to be around since 1967.
Paul191
06 Oct 2006, 01:35
Well i think they have been doing something right to be around since 1967.
Not for me they haven't
Well i think they have been doing something right to be around since 1967.
Yep..they promote the "right" people...
I know somebody who was fired from the magazine because he dared to express his honest opinion about the band he was reviewing which was crap...
don't listen to them, the cover is great along with the album. I have 2 words for them "SUCK IT"
wenners
06 Oct 2006, 02:21
you dont last 40 year by writing crap all the time.
Now im not saying their review is right or wrong but not every journalist review is going to be positive and just because they write a review you disagree with doesn't automatically make them a shite publication and the end of the day (it gets dark) its all about personal choice
Paul191
06 Oct 2006, 02:31
you dont last 40 year by writing crap all the time.
Now im not saying their review is right or wrong but not every journalist review is going to be positive and just because they write a review you disagree with doesn't automatically make them a shite publication
The only thing that I still like after it took the micky out of Meat is 'Top Gear' and that is only because 'Top Gear' is to TV what Meat is to music.
Actually...... to be honest, I'm not as one minded as I have made out to be above, I just don't like it when people try to rip it out of Meat for the stupidist things, like in the publication.;)
Syaing that, my respect for RS has dropped to almost zero.
wenners
06 Oct 2006, 03:03
I dont believe the comment above was aimed at anyone being closed minded. It was just making a point that not everyone is going to see things as you do or wish they would.
It is the expectance of criticism that makes us not only a stronger person but also allows us to develop and evolve into greater things. It is those criticism's that push us to want to achieve more.
Keep telling someone how great they are all the time may boost someone's ego short time but after a period of time all that praise means nothing. Praise someone when they have done or achieved something good but also criticise them in a constructive way when you feel they have not. by doing this the praise will mean so much more and be more respected.
journalism is all about opinions and views
rockfenris2005
06 Oct 2006, 12:03
'Rolling Stone' is a crap magazine aswell as all those other magazines that read in exactly the same way such as 'Mojo'.
LOL, he says it's a crap magazine. LOL, it's one of the most iconic magazines in the whole F*CKIN music industry!
And they've never liked Meat Loaf
LOL, he says it's a crap magazine. LOL, it's one of the most iconic magazines in the whole F*CKIN music industry!
And they've never liked Meat Loaf
Doesn't stop it from being crap. And I don't think Meat would care if they liked him or not.
rockfenris2005
06 Oct 2006, 12:06
He doesn't care. Wish his fans would feel the same
He doesn't care. Wish his fans would feel the same
Come off, fans are always gonna be defensive of who they support, and I wouldn't say you are any different, you would be defensive of who you support. That's why they are a fan!
rockfenris2005
06 Oct 2006, 12:18
That has nothing to do with calling "Rolling Stone" a crap magazine. It isn't. It's one of the most iconic magazines in the history of the music biz.
Everyone one to their own, personally I think Rolling Stones magazine is rubbish, I prefer other music publications to read, comes to preference. If Rolling Stones magazine was to say, Great album, great cover etc, suddenly doesn't make me wanna be a regular reader of the magazine. everyone is entitled to their opinion.
rockfenris2005
06 Oct 2006, 12:30
Everyone is. But whatever it happens to be, it doesn't mean that Rolling Stone is "crap"
Everyone is. But whatever it happens to be, it doesn't mean that Rolling Stone is "crap"
Right, maybe not crap, but rubbish to some (including me). But a magazine is the same as everbody else. If it can dish out negative comments about something or someone, it must be prepared for a backlash itself, and obviously, in the case of Rolling stone magazine, that is gonna come from the fans of the artist it is commenting on. Same with anything else, if it can give it, it's got to take it too. :D
Mike Piercy
06 Oct 2006, 12:55
Rolling Stone used to be a highly credible magazine but after a "review" which doesn't actually review the content I wouldn't buy it again.
rockfenris2005
06 Oct 2006, 13:18
Right, maybe not crap, but rubbish to some (including me). But a magazine is the same as everbody else. If it can dish out negative comments about something or someone, it must be prepared for a backlash itself, and obviously, in the case of Rolling stone magazine, that is gonna come from the fans of the artist it is commenting on. Same with anything else, if it can give it, it's got to take it too. :D
That still has nothing to do with the fact that it's one of the most iconic magazines in the music industry.
rockfenris2005
06 Oct 2006, 13:19
Rolling Stone used to be a highly credible magazine but after a "review" which doesn't actually review the content I wouldn't buy it again.
Based on one review????
That still has nothing to do with the fact that it's one of the most iconic magazines in the music industry.
Eh, who said anything about it not being 'iconic'. I didn't. I said I think it is a rubbish magazine, and don't like it, that is my opinion, which I am entitled to. I don't have to like it because it is 'iconic' and neither does anybody else.
MeatGrl1
06 Oct 2006, 18:52
It amazes me how people can be so cruel!
Meat please do not take those comments to heart, we love you here!
allrevvedup
06 Oct 2006, 19:09
I would imagine Meat cares little about what the media reviews are of the album but then again who knows
Either way there's no such thing as bad publicity and this review will either put people off or make them want to buy/sample the album to see if it really is the way the review says
But that would've been the case with or without the review
Paul191
06 Oct 2006, 21:38
He doesn't care. Wish his fans would feel the same
I know they've always hated Meat and 'NO' I won't feel the same as Meat. I suppose you can call me a Meat fan. Oh, and did I mention that the magazine is a load of cow turd.
ChoccyBat
07 Oct 2006, 00:32
I think it is excellent - the crticism that is! Bat I was slated, and Meat Loaf was called the "worst rock band in the world". That album went on to sell the odd copy or two ;).
Meat is renegade and different - to some people you just say "Meat Loaf" and they snigger. But most admit to owning at least one of his albums. And ALL know who he is - that says something, 30 years after his career started!
He's selling out arena tours 30 years on, he must be doing something right.
Paul191
07 Oct 2006, 03:57
I think it is excellent - the crticism that is! Bat III was slated, and Meat Loaf was called the "worst rock band in the world". That album went on to sell the odd copy or two ;).
Meat is renegade and different - to some people you just say "Meat Loaf" and they snigger. But most admit to owning at least one of his albums. And ALL know who he is - that says something, 30 years after his career started!
He's selling out arena tours 30 years on, he must be doing something right.
Exactly!!!!!!!!!! and that S**T magazine 'Rolling Stone' think they have the right to slate his album covers and music!
About 95% of the music they rate as 'exellent' hasn't sold even half as much as the original Bat and that says something. They wouldn't know good music if it came a plopped on their face.
wenners
07 Oct 2006, 12:32
Exactly!!!!!!!!!! and that S**T magazine 'Rolling Stone' think they have the right to slate his album covers and music!
About 95% of the music they rate as 'exellent' hasn't sold even half as much as the original Bat and that says something. They wouldn't know good music if it came a plopped on their face.
I have read some tosh on here but this comes close to taking the biscuit.
Of course they have a right to slate any ones album covers and music they are a music publication.
A good album will succeed on its own merits and time is the best judge of that
what you seem to forget is when all previous albums have come out they have bucked the current music trends of the time i.e. disco, punk etc.
do you think people are swayed by thier coments. apparenty somewhere between 30-50 million people have bought the original Bat out of hell depends on where you get the stats from. do you think any of them paid attention to the following review in RS in 1977?
He knew a lot didnt he?
RS quote>
Meatloaf earned his somewhat eccentric name as a performer in the Rocky Horror Show, the theatrical torture, although he had previously spent several years as a rock singer in Detroit, even recording a single or two for Motown. Bat Out of Hell reflects such diversity, but can't resolve it. Meat Loaf has an outstanding voice, but his phrasing is way too stage-struck to make the album's pretensions to comic-book street life real. He needs a little less West Side Story and a little more Bruce Springsteen.
Jim Steinman, who wrote and arranged the entire album, needs a lot less of both. Some of the songs here, particularly "You Took the Words Right Out of My Mouth," are swell, but they are entirely mannered and derivative. Steinman is wordy, and his attempts to recapture adolescence are only remembrances; he can't bring out the transcendently personal elements that make a song like "Night Moves," an obvious influence here. The arrangements aren't bad, although they play into the hammiest of Meat Loaf's postures, and the playing is excellent, led by pianist Roy Bittan and drummer Max Weinberg of Springsteen's E Street Band and producer Todd Rundgren's guitars. But the principals have some growing to do. (RS 254)
djfierce
07 Oct 2006, 13:59
i always believed that what made meat so special was that you couldnt pigeon hole him, this mag doesnt seem to like that. After all how can they compare it if there is nothing like it!!
They hated the first one - the fans loved it creating a huge following
They didnt really like the second one - we did
They don't like the third one - Hmm i feel a trend coming on!
In my view this article can only help.
As for the comments from readers? i doubt any of them have actually listened to a meat song properly, any sceptic i have ever played my faves to have always changed their mind!! And if they have thats fine!! Its a very simple process, they don't have to buy the album!
Do you think any of them paid attention to the following review in RS in 1977?
He knew a lot didnt he?
RS quote>
Meatloaf earned his somewhat eccentric name as a performer in the Rocky Horror Show, the theatrical torture, although he had previously spent several years as a rock singer in Detroit, even recording a single or two for Motown. Bat Out of Hell reflects such diversity, but can't resolve it. Meat Loaf has an outstanding voice, but his phrasing is way too stage-struck to make the album's pretensions to comic-book street life real. He needs a little less West Side Story and a little more Bruce Springsteen.
Jim Steinman, who wrote and arranged the entire album, needs a lot less of both. Some of the songs here, particularly "You Took the Words Right Out of My Mouth," are swell, but they are entirely mannered and derivative. Steinman is wordy, and his attempts to recapture adolescence are only remembrances; he can't bring out the transcendently personal elements that make a song like "Night Moves," an obvious influence here. The arrangements aren't bad, although they play into the hammiest of Meat Loaf's postures, and the playing is excellent, led by pianist Roy Bittan and drummer Max Weinberg of Springsteen's E Street Band and producer Todd Rundgren's guitars. But the principals have some growing to do. (RS 254)
Well no one must have paid much attention, if this album went on to be one of the best selling albums of all time. What Meat and Jim did, back then was different, very different, and that is what people liked. Same with Bat 2, it was different back in 1993, and again, Bat 3, is different to what people are listening to right now, because all the albums are catchy, there is something there, that makes people say, 'Mmmmmm, that's rather good'.
Not every publication, is gonna like Meat's style. And he knows, whatever he does, he is gonna get some sort of criticism. :D
vBulletin® v3.8.10, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.